Welcome to NGC. Skip directly to: Search Box, Navigation, Content.


Complete Summary

GUIDELINE TITLE

Standards of medical care in diabetes. VIII. Diabetes care in specific settings.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • American Diabetes Association (ADA). Standards of medical care in diabetes. VIII. Diabetes care in specific settings. Diabetes Care 2008 Jan;31(Suppl 1):S37-43.

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: American Diabetes Association (ADA). Standards of medical care in diabetes. VIII. Diabetes care in specific settings. Diabetes Care 2007 Jan;30(Suppl 1):S27-33.

COMPLETE SUMMARY CONTENT

 
SCOPE
 METHODOLOGY - including Rating Scheme and Cost Analysis
 RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 BENEFITS/HARMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS
 QUALIFYING STATEMENTS
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINE
 INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE (IOM) NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY REPORT CATEGORIES
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

SCOPE

DISEASE/CONDITION(S)

  • Type l diabetes mellitus
  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

GUIDELINE CATEGORY

Evaluation
Management

CLINICAL SPECIALTY

Endocrinology
Family Practice
Internal Medicine
Pediatrics

INTENDED USERS

Advanced Practice Nurses
Allied Health Personnel
Dietitians
Health Care Providers
Nurses
Patients
Physicians
Public Health Departments

GUIDELINE OBJECTIVE(S)

  • To provide recommendations for the management of diabetes in specific settings including:
    • Hospitals
    • Schools and daycare
    • Diabetes camps
    • Correctional institutions
    • Emergency/disaster situations
  • To provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care

TARGET POPULATION

Diabetic patients in hospital, school/daycare, diabetes camp, correctional institution settings, or emergency/disaster situations

INTERVENTIONS AND PRACTICES CONSIDERED

Hospitals

  1. Identification of diabetes in medical record
  2. Blood glucose monitoring and documentation including nondiabetic patients who receive therapy associated with risk of hyperglycemia (e.g., high-dose glucocorticoids)
  3. Setting blood glucose level goals
  4. Insulin, as necessary, including intravenous administration, mealtime prandial insulin dosing, and correction doses or "supplemental" insulin
  5. Developing a plan for the treatment of hypoglycemia
  6. Obtaining A1C level
  7. Diabetes education
  8. Follow-up testing for hyperglycemic patients without a diagnosis of diabetes

Note: Guideline developers considered but did not recommend noninsulin glucose-lowering agents in hospitalized patients.

Schools/Daycare

  1. Development of an individualized diabetes medical management plan
  2. Training of school personnel in diabetes procedures
  3. Ensuring student access to diabetes supplies
  4. Permitting self-monitoring of glucose by student

Diabetes Camps

  1. Completion of standardized medical form
  2. Ensuring staff expertise in managing type 1 and type 2 diabetes
  3. Background testing of all camp staff

Correctional Institutions

  1. Appropriate correctional staff training and education
  2. Medical history and physical examination
  3. Capillary blood glucose (CBG) determination
  4. Identification of type 1 diabetic patients at high risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
  5. Uninterrupted continuation of medications and medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
  6. Development and implementation of policies and procedures to enable capillary blood glucose monitoring at appropriate frequency
  7. Completion of medical transfer summary for inter-institutional transfers, including plan for transferring supplies and medication
  8. Discharge planning

Emergency and Disaster Preparedness

Preparation, review, and replenishment of a waterproof and insulated disaster kit

MAJOR OUTCOMES CONSIDERED

  • Glycemic levels
  • Morbidity
  • Mortality
  • Safety and efficacy of treatment interventions

METHODOLOGY

METHODS USED TO COLLECT/SELECT EVIDENCE

Searches of Electronic Databases

DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO COLLECT/SELECT THE EVIDENCE

Not stated

NUMBER OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS

Not stated

METHODS USED TO ASSESS THE QUALITY AND STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE

Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)

RATING SCHEME FOR THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE

American Diabetes Association's Evidence Grading System for Clinical Practice Recommendations

A

Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable, randomized controlled trials that are adequately powered, including:

  • Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
  • Compelling non-experimental evidence (i.e., "all or none" rule developed by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford*)

Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized, controlled trials that are adequately powered, including:

  • Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
*Either all patients died before therapy and at least some survived with therapy, or some patients died without therapy and none died with therapy. Example: use of insulin in the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis.

B

Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies, including:

  • Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
  • Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies

Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study

C

Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies, including:

  • Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
  • Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison with historical controls)
  • Evidence from case series or case reports

Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the recommendation

E

Expert consensus or clinical experience

METHODS USED TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE

Review of Published Meta-Analyses
Systematic Review

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS USED TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE

Not stated

METHODS USED TO FORMULATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Expert Consensus

DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO FORMULATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Not stated

RATING SCHEME FOR THE STRENGTH OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations have been assigned ratings of A, B or C, depending on the quality of evidence (see "Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence"). Expert opinion (E) is a separate category for recommendations in which there is as yet no evidence from clinical trials, in which clinical trials may be impractical, or in which there is conflicting evidence. Recommendations with an "A" rating are based on large, well-designed clinical trials or well done meta-analyses. Generally, these recommendations have the best chance of improving outcomes when applied to the population to which they are appropriate. Recommendations with lower levels of evidence may be equally important but are not as well supported.

COST ANALYSIS

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.

METHOD OF GUIDELINE VALIDATION

Internal Peer Review

DESCRIPTION OF METHOD OF GUIDELINE VALIDATION

The recommendations were reviewed and approved in October 2007 by the Professional Practice Committee and, subsequently, by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The evidence grading system for clinical practice recommendations (A through C, E) is defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Diabetes Care in Specific Settings

Diabetes Care in the Hospital

  • All patients with diabetes admitted to the hospital should have their diabetes clearly identified in the medical record. (E)
  • All patients with diabetes should have an order for blood glucose monitoring, with results available to all members of the health care team. (E)
  • Goals for blood glucose levels:
    • Critically ill patients: blood glucose levels should be kept as close to 110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L) as possible and generally <140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L). (A) These patients require intravenous (IV) insulin protocol that has demonstrated efficacy and safety in achieving the desired glucose range without increasing risks for severe hypoglycemia. (E)
    • Non–critically ill patients: there is no clear evidence for specific blood glucose goals. Since cohort data suggest that outcomes are better in hospitalized patients with fasting glucose <126 mg/dL and all random glucoses <180 to 200, these goals are reasonable if they can be safely achieved. Insulin is the preferred drug to treat hyperglycemia in most cases. (E)
    • Due to concerns regarding the risk of hypoglycemia, some institutions may consider these blood glucose levels to be overly aggressive for initial targets. Through quality improvement, glycemic goals should systematically be reduced to the recommended levels. (E)
  • Scheduled prandial insulin doses should be given in relation to meals and should be adjusted according to point-of-care glucose levels. The traditional sliding-scale insulin regimens are ineffective as monotherapy and are not recommended. (C)
  • Using correction dose or "supplemental" insulin to correct premeal hyperglycemia in addition to scheduled prandial and basal insulin is recommended. (E)
  • Glucose monitoring with orders for correction insulin should be initiated in any patient not known to be diabetic who receives therapy associated with high risk for hyperglycemia, including high-dose glucocorticoids therapy, initiation of enteral or parenteral nutrition, or other medications such as octreotide or immunosuppressive medications. (B) If hyperglycemia is documented and persistent, initiation of basal/bolus insulin therapy may be necessary. Such patients should be treated to the same glycemic goals as patients with known diabetes. (E)
  • A plan for treating hypoglycemia should be established for each patient. Episodes of hypoglycemia in the hospital should be tracked. (E)
  • All patients with diabetes admitted to the hospital should have an A1C obtained if the result of testing in the previous 2 to 3 months is not available. (E)
  • A diabetes education plan including "survival skills education" and follow-up should be developed for each patient. (E)
  • Patients with hyperglycemia in the hospital who do not have a diagnosis of diabetes should have appropriate plans for follow-up testing and care documented at discharge. (E)

Diabetes Care in the School and Day Care Setting

  • An individualized diabetes medical management plan (DMMP) should be developed by the parent/guardian and the student's diabetes health care team. (E)
  • An adequate number of school personnel should be trained in the necessary diabetes procedures (including monitoring of blood glucose levels and administration of insulin and glucagon) and in the appropriate response to high and low blood glucose levels. These school personnel need not be health care professionals. (E)
  • As specified in the DMMP and as developmentally appropriate, the student with diabetes should have immediate access to diabetes supplies at all times, should be permitted to monitor his or her blood glucose level, and should be able to take appropriate action to treat hypoglycemia in the classroom or anywhere the student may be in conjunction with a school activity. (E)

Diabetes Care at Diabetes Camps

  • Each camper should have a standardized medical form completed by his/her family and the physician managing the diabetes. (E)
  • Camp medical staff should be led by a physician with expertise in managing type 1 and type 2 diabetes and includes nurses (including diabetes educators and diabetes clinical nurse specialists) and registered dietitians with expertise in diabetes. (E)
  • All camp staff, including physicians, nurses, dietitians, and volunteers, should undergo background testing to ensure appropriateness in working with children. (E)

Diabetes Management in Correctional Institutions

  • Correctional staff should be trained in the recognition, treatment, and appropriate referral for hypo- and hyperglycemia, including serious metabolic decompensation. (E)
  • Patients with a diagnosis of diabetes should have a complete medical history and physical examination by a licensed health care provider with prescriptive authority in a timely manner upon entry. Insulin-treated patients should have a capillary blood glucose (CBG) determination within 1 to 2 hours of arrival. Staff should identify patients with type 1 diabetes who are at high risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) with omission of insulin. (E)
  • Medications and medical nutrition therapy (MNT) should be continued without interruption upon entry into the correctional environment. (E)
  • In the correctional setting, policies and procedures should enable CBG monitoring to occur at the frequency necessitated by the patient's glycemic control and diabetes regimen, and should require staff to notify a physician of all CBG results outside of a specified range, as determined by the treating physician. (E)
  • For all inter-institutional transfers, a medical transfer summary should be transferred with the patient, and diabetes supplies and medication should accompany the patient. (E)
  • Correctional staff should begin discharge planning with adequate lead time to insure continuity of care and facilitate entry into community diabetes care. (E)

For more information, see the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) summary of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guideline Diabetes Management in Correctional Institutions.

Emergency and Disaster Preparedness

  • People with diabetes should maintain a disaster kit that includes items important to their diabetes self-management and continuing medical care. (E)
  • The kit should be reviewed and replenished at least twice yearly. (E)

Definitions:

American Diabetes Association's Evidence Grading System for Clinical Practice Recommendations

A

Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable, randomized controlled trials that are adequately powered, including:

  • Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
  • Compelling non-experimental evidence (i.e., "all or none" rule developed by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford*)

Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized, controlled trials that are adequately powered, including:

  • Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
*Either all patients died before therapy and at least some survived with therapy, or some patients died without therapy and none died with therapy. Example: use of insulin in the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis.

B

Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies, including:

  • Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
  • Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies

Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study

C

Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies, including:

  • Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
  • Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison with historical controls)
  • Evidence from case series or case reports

Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the recommendation

E

Expert consensus or clinical experience

CLINICAL ALGORITHM(S)

None provided

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

BENEFITS/HARMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Appropriate diabetes management in special settings: hospital, school, day-care, diabetes camp, correctional institutions, and emergency and disaster situations

POTENTIAL HARMS

Hypoglycemia, especially in insulin-treated patients, is the leading limiting factor in the glycemic management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

QUALIFYING STATEMENTS

QUALIFYING STATEMENTS

  • Evidence is only one component of clinical decision-making. Clinicians care for patients, not populations; guidelines must always be interpreted with the needs of the individual patient in mind. Individual circumstances, such as comorbid and coexisting diseases, age, education, disability, and, above all, patient's values and preferences, must also be considered and may lead to different treatment targets and strategies. Also, conventional evidence hierarchies, such as the one adapted by the American Diabetes Association, may miss some nuances that are important in diabetes care. For example, while there is excellent evidence from clinical trials supporting the importance of achieving glycemic control, the optimal way to achieve this result is less clear. It is difficult to assess each component of such a complex intervention.
  • While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINE

DESCRIPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

In recent years, numerous health care organizations, ranging from large health care systems such as the U.S. Veteran's Administration to small private practices have implemented strategies to improve diabetes care. Successful programs have published results showing improvement in process measures such as measurement of A1C, lipids, and blood pressure. Successful interventions have been focused at the level of health care professionals, delivery systems, and patients. Features of successful programs reported in the literature include:

  • Improving health care professional education regarding the standards of care through formal and informal education programs.
  • Delivery of diabetes self-management education (DSME), which has been shown to increase adherence to standard of care.
  • Adoption of practice guidelines, with participation of health care professionals in the process. Guidelines should be readily accessible at the point of service, such as on patient charts, in examining rooms, in "wallet or pocket cards," on personal digital assistants (PDAs), or on office computer systems. Guidelines should begin with a summary of their major recommendations instructing health care professionals what to do and how to do it.
  • Use of checklists that mirror guidelines have been successful at improving adherence to standards of care.
  • Systems changes, such as provision of automated reminders to health care professionals and patients, reporting of process and outcome data to providers, and especially identification of patients at risk because of failure to achieve target values or a lack of reported values.
  • Quality improvement programs combining Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) or other cycles of analysis and intervention with provider performance data.
  • Practice changes, such as clustering of dedicated diabetes visits into specific times within a primary care practice schedule and/or visits with multiple health care professionals on a single day and group visits.
  • Tracking systems either with an electronic medical record or patient registry have been helpful at increasing adherence to standards of care by prospectively identifying those requiring assessments and/or treatment modifications. They likely could have greater efficacy if they suggested specific therapeutic interventions to be considered for a particular patient at a particular point in time.
  • A variety of non-automated systems, such as mailing reminders to patients, chart stickers, and flow sheets, have been useful to prompt both providers and patients.
  • Availability of case or (preferably) care management services, usually by a nurse. Nurses, pharmacists, and other non-physician health care professionals using detailed algorithms working under the supervision of physicians and/or nurse education calls have also been helpful. Similarly dietitians using medical nutrition therapy (MNT) guidelines have been demonstrated to improve glycemic control.
  • Availability and involvement of expert consultants, such as endocrinologists and diabetes educators.

Evidence suggests that these individual initiatives work best when provided as components of a multifactorial intervention. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the contribution of each component; however, it is clear that optimal diabetes management requires an organized, systematic approach and involvement of a coordinated team of health care professionals.

IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS

Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) Downloads

For information about availability, see the "Availability of Companion Documents" and "Patient Resources" fields below.

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE (IOM) NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY REPORT CATEGORIES

IOM CARE NEED

Living with Illness
Staying Healthy

IOM DOMAIN

Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
Safety

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • American Diabetes Association (ADA). Standards of medical care in diabetes. VIII. Diabetes care in specific settings. Diabetes Care 2008 Jan;31(Suppl 1):S37-43.

ADAPTATION

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

DATE RELEASED

1998 (revised 2008 Jan)

GUIDELINE DEVELOPER(S)

American Diabetes Association - Professional Association

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING

The American Diabetes Association received an educational grant from LifeScan, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson Company, to support publication of the 2008 Diabetes Care Supplement.

GUIDELINE COMMITTEE

Professional Practice Committee

COMPOSITION OF GROUP THAT AUTHORED THE GUIDELINE

Committee Members: Irl Hirsch, MD, Chair; Martin Abrahamson, MD; Andrew Ahmann, MD; Lawrence Blonde, MD; Silvio Inzucchi, MD; Mary T. Korytkowski, MN, MD, MSN; Melinda Maryniuk, MEd, RD, CDE; Elizabeth Mayer-Davis, MS, PhD, RD; Janet H. Silverstein, MD; Robert Toto, MD

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Not stated

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: American Diabetes Association (ADA). Standards of medical care in diabetes. VIII. Diabetes care in specific settings. Diabetes Care 2007 Jan;30(Suppl 1):S27-33.

GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY

AVAILABILITY OF COMPANION DOCUMENTS

PATIENT RESOURCES

None available

NGC STATUS

This summary was completed by ECRI on April 2, 2001. The information was verified by the guideline developer on August 24, 2001. This summary was updated by ECRI on April 21, 2003, May 26, 2004, July 1, 2005, and March 17, 2006 and April 26, 2007. This summary was updated most recently by ECRI Institute on April 1, 2008. The updated information was verified by the guideline developer on May 15, 2008.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

DISCLAIMER

NGC DISCLAIMER

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.


 

 

   
DHHS Logo